Courts may admit additional documents in connected matrimonial proceedings to advance substantial justice despite interlocutory-order bars.

The petitioner/complainant initiated criminal proceedings at Mahila Police Thana, Gwalior, alleging matrimonial cruelty, harassment, and mental and physical torture against the respondents under Sections 498-A, 294, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

A charge-sheet was filed and the case was pending trial.

During the petitioner’s evidence, before her examination had concluded, she applied on 8 May 2026 to produce additional documents, including certified copies/statements of Smt. Manju Sharma and Shri Ballu Rajak recorded in connected Criminal Case No. 929/2024 under Section 406 IPC, arising from the same matrimonial dispute.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class rejected the application on 15 May 2026.

The 9th Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the petitioner’s revision on 2 July 2026, treating the Magistrate’s order as interlocutory and therefore barred by Section 397(2) of the CrPC.

The petitioner consequently invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, concerning the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It also considered Section 397(2) of the CrPC, which bars revision against interlocutory orders.

Relying on Sethuraman v. Rajamanickam, Criminal Appeal Nos. 486–487 of 2009, the Court recognised that orders concerning production of documents or recalling of witnesses are ordinarily interlocutory and not revisable under Section 397(2).

However, the Court held that procedural technicality should not prevent substantial justice, particularly where connected matrimonial proceedings involve overlapping facts; relevant material may therefore be received subject to the opposite party’s opportunity to rebut, cross-examine, or otherwise challenge it.

The High Court accepted that the Revisional Court had correctly treated the Magistrate’s order as interlocutory and had not committed legal illegality in dismissing the revision.

Nevertheless, the Court exercised its independent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS because the proposed documents consisted of certified statements from a connected Section 406 IPC case arising out of the same matrimonial dispute and were asserted to be relevant to the pending prosecution under Sections 498-A and allied provisions.

Since the petitioner’s evidence was still continuing and the respondents could be protected by an opportunity to contest the documents, their reception would not cause irremediable prejudice.

The Court therefore preferred substantive adjudication of the connected dispute over strict adherence to the procedural bar governing revision.

The High Court set aside the orders dated 2 July 2026 and 15 May 2026, permitted the petitioner to place the certified copies/statements of the connected proceedings on record, and directed the trial Court to receive them, subject to reasonable costs if considered appropriate.

The respondents were to be given adequate opportunity to rebut and challenge the documents in accordance with law.